EDI-STAFF BUILDERS V NLRC

537 SCRA 409 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Proof of Foreign Law
In 1993, EDI-Staffbuilders, Inc. (EDI), upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia, sent to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a
computer specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected. It was agreed that his monthly salary shall be $850.00. But five months into his service in Saudi Arabia, Gran received a termination
letter and right there and then was removed from his post. The termination letter states that he was incompetent because he does not know the ACAD system which is required in his
line of work; that he failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5 month stay to prove his competence; that he is disobedient because he failed to submit the required daily reports to
OAB. Gran then signed a quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing OAB from any liability in exchange of 2,948.00 Riyal.
When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB. EDI in its defense averred that the dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the
employment contract, both parties agreed that Saudi labor laws shall govern all matters relating to the termination of Gran’s employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Gran’s termination
due to incompetence and insubordination is valid; that Gran’s insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the termination letter Gran received. The labor arbiter dismissed the
labor case but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied.
HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in court. EDI did not present proof as to the existence and the specific provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual
presumption applies and Philippine labor laws shall be used. Under our laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon just cause. The allegations against him, at worst,
shall only merit a suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not proven because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the required trade test to prove his competence.
The presumption therefore is that he is competent and that it is upon OAB and EDI to prove otherwise. No proof of his incompetence was ever adduced in court. His alleged
insubordination is likewise not proven. It was not proven that the submission of daily track records is part of his job as a computer specialist. There was also a lack of due process.
Under our laws, Gran is entitled to the two notice rule whereby prior to termination he should receive two notices. In the case at bar, he only received one and he was immediately
terminated on the same day he received the notice.
Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability. Philippine laws is again applied here sans proof of Saudi laws. Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned
upon and are strictly examined. In this case, based on the circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation
pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower than the $850.00 monthly salary (3,190 Riyal).
Saudi Arabia Airlines and Brenda Betia v.

Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al.

GR No: 198587 Jan.14,2015 Leonen, J.

SUMMARY: Various flight attendants got pregnant while working for Saudi Arabia Airlines, to which
they requested for Maternity leaves. Apparently there was a recently passed Unified Employment
Contracts which allowed for them to be terminated should they ever be pregnant due to lack of physical
fitness. The flight attendants were made to resign upon threat of losing any benefits they might have
should they have resigned, and thus petition for illegal dismissal; Petitioner Airlines claim that the Labor
Arbiter and NLRC do not have jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE: Labor Contracts are a matter of Public Policy, and thus Philippine laws clearly find
application in this case.

Dale Tuddleezy | Law 113 | Group 2

FACTS:
1) Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is a foreign
corporation established and existing under the Royal
Decree No. M/24 of Jeddah, who hired Respondents as
flight attendants. After undergoing seminars required by
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for
deployment overseas, as well as training modules
offered by Saudia, Respondents became Temporary
and then eventually Permanent Flight Attendants; they
entered into the necessary Cabin Attendant Contracts
with Saudi.
2) Respondents were released from service on
separate dates in 2006; claimed that such release was
illegal since the basis of termination of contract was
solely because they were pregnant. They claim that
they had informed Saudia of their respective
pregnancies and had gone through the necessary
procedures to process their maternity leaves and while
initially, Saudia had given its approval, they ultimately
reneged and rather required them to file for resignation.
3) Respondents claim that Petitioner Airlines threatened
that if they would not resign, they would be terminated
along with loss of benefits, separation pay, and ticket
discount entitlements; they anchored such on its
“Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin
Attendants" which provides that “ if the Air Hostess
becomes pregnant at any time during the term of this
contract, this shall render her employment contract as
void and she will be terminated due to lack of medical
fitness. “
RATIO:
 No doubt that the pleadings were served to
Petitioner Airlines through their counsel, however
they claim that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter had no
jurisdiction since summons were served to Saudi
Airlines Manila and not to them, Saudi Airlines
Jeddah. Saudi Airlines Manila was neither a party
to the Cabin attendant contracts nor funded the
Respondents, and it was to Saudi Jeddah that they
filed their resignations. Court ruled however that b y
its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign
corporation, has a Philippine office, and that under
the Foreign Investments act of 1991, they are a
foreign corporation doing business in the Phils and
therefore are subject to Philippine jurisdiction.
 Petitioner Airlines also asserts that the Cabin
Attendant Contracts require the application of the
laws of Saudi Arabia rather than those of the
5)November 8,2007 - Respondents filed a Complaint
with the Labor Arbiter against Saudia and its officers for
illegal dismissal and for underpayment, along with moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioner
Airlines contests the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction, as the
contract’s points referred to foreign law and that
Respondents had no cause of action since they already
voluntarily resigned.
6) Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but
on appeal the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s
decision and denied Petitioner Airlines’ Motion for
Reconsideration, hence the current appeal.
RELEVANT ISSUE:
WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has jurisdiction
over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine
jurisdiction over the dispute? YES. Summons were
validly served on Saudia and jurisdiction over it
validly acquired.
 Furthermore, contracts relating to labor and
employment are impressed with public interest.
Article 1700 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he
relation between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the
common good.
 Pakistan Airlines Ruling: relationship is much
affected with public interest and that the otherwise
applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot
be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon
some other law to govern their relationship.
As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents
allege to be) the illegal termination of respondents'
employment, this case is immutably a matter of public
interest and public policy. Consistent with clear
pronouncements in law and jurisprudence, Philippine
laws properly find application in and govern this case.
 Philippines. It claims that the difficulty of DISPOSITIVE:
ascertaining foreign law calls into operation the
principle of forum non conveniens, thereby Appealed Decision is Affirmed, case is remanded for a
rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by detailed computation of the amount to be paid by
Philippine tribunals. Saudi Airlines.
 Court: Forum non conveniens finds no application
and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals
of jurisdiction and to require the application of
foreign law. Though Article 1306 of the Civil Code
provides that Parties may stipulate terms they may
deem convenient, Philippine tribunals may not lose
sight of considerations of law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy that underlie
the contract.
 Article II, Sections 1 and 14 of the 1987
Constitution ensures the equal protection of
persons, and the equality between men and
women. Though pregnancy does present physical
limitations that may render difficult the performance
of functions associated with being a flight
attendant, it would be the height of iniquity to view
pregnancy as a disability so permanent and
immutable that, it must entail the termination of
one's employment.